Another scoring question

Seapig <seapig.RemoveThis@altavista.com> writes:

>I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
>distinction. In neither case does the catching of the ball result
>directly in the run. In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
>dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
>home. We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
>either case. It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
>same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
>unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.

Not really. In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
predictable. A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
has a great arm. Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance. The same is not true
of a pop foul. Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly. Because of
that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
doesn't reflect well on the batter.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question 

In <8f001875-5718-4963-96c6-a61b2056556f RemoveThis @34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhersh RemoveThis @acme.com> writes:

>Furthermore, there is a moralistic element to when an RBI is or is not
>credited. Bases loaded, no outs, batter hits into a double play,
>scoring the runner from third. Why is he not given an RBI? Because
>he probably wasn't trying to avoid that double play, the run
^^^^^
>notwithstanding. But what if it is the bottom of the ninth with the
>score tied? Then he is just thrilled to hit into that double play.
>But this added complication has not been put into the rules.

[I think you meant "WAS trying to avoid that double play"]

Perhaps because it wouldn't happen in practice. No team would
ever go for the double play in that situation, they'd always
throw home. So it's not so much a moral matter as it is
the intent of the defense. When there's a double play and
the run scores, that's usually because the defense chooses
the doubleplay over preventing the run. In other "fielder's
choice" situations where a run scores, it's because the
fielder decides he doesn't have a chance to get the guy
at the plate.

>I suspect that the rather odd situation under discussion here doesn't
>get the RBI because the batter is not worthy. It's not an error, but
>it isn't entirely unlike an error, either.

There may be no consistent reasoning, but it seems that it's based
on the view that the guy falling into the dugout is a separate event.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question 

On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Seapig <sea....TakeThisOut@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:07 am, r....TakeThisOut@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Seapig <sea....TakeThisOut@altavista.com> writes:
> > >I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
> > >distinction.  In neither case does the catching of the ball result
> > >directly in the run.  In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
> > >dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
> > >home.  We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
> > >either case.  It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
> > >same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
> > >unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.
>
> > Not really.  In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
> > predictable.  A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
> > vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
> > has a great arm.  Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
> > score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
> > on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance.  The same is not true
> > of a pop foul.  Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
> > runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly.  Because of
> > that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
> > play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
> > doesn't reflect well on the batter.
>
> So, we're basically saying "you hit a ball like that, you can't expect
> to drive in a run, so we're not giving you any credit, (even if, by
> some strange set of circumstances, it actually does bring in a run)"?

Obviously, none of us were present at the rules committee meeting, but
yeah, that's my take on it.

> I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I have a hypothetical
> situation to further explore the idea:
>
> Let's say the bases are loaded with one out.  Batter hits a pop-up in
> the infield.  Because of wind, or sun, or miscommunication, or some
> combination thereof, the ball drops, untouched, and the runner scores
> from third.  Do we give an RBI?

Sure, because we give the batter a hit, and a run scored on this hit,
so it meets the criteria for an RBI.

I take your point, that if we are to award RBIs based on pure merit,
this ought not qualify. But this gets into principles of how to write
a set of rules. The rules committee could have taken a minimalist
approach: lay out some general principles of what should or should
not merit an RBI, and tell the official scorer to do what he thinks
best. The problem is that this means the same action will have
different results from scorer to scorer (or depending on who is at
bat). To some extent this is unavoidable, but generally the idea is
to minimize this. So the solution is to define the various possible
situations and define as narrowly as possible the requirements for the
scorer to use his own judgment.

In the scenario of the three fielders standing and watching the ball
drop between them, the decision was made long ago to score that as a
hit. Remember that errors are defined as a fielder muffing or
fumbling a ball or making a wild throw. There is nothing about a
fielder not being where he should be to catch the ball: and do we
really want official scorers to be deciding what a fielder's range
factor should be? One can argue that in the three-fielders-watching
scenario there should be a provision for a team error, but for better
or worse this idea has never been accepted.

So moving this to the RBI question, the rules could make a provision
for a situation of a hit which ought not have been a hit, so there is
no RBI for it, but again, this has never been added. This is probably
a good thing. While there are situations we can all agree on, there
are always marginal situations as well. What about a pop-up where
the three fielders are converging but none quite reach it? Perhaps
had one taken charge and directed traffic better, another would have
been able to go all out and reach the ball. Or perhaps not. Again,
this leads to scoring based on how fast we think a fielder should have
been able to run.

I think the current rules do create an occasional injustice: the
pitcher gets dinged for what should have been an easy pop-up. But
attempting to eliminate these situations would create more problems
and more complications, and it's just a game: hurting a pitcher's ERA
isn't sending an innocent man to prison.

Richard R. Hershberger
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question 

On Apr 24, 8:05 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....RemoveThis@acme.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Seapig <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:07 am, r....RemoveThis@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
> > > Seapig <sea....RemoveThis@altavista.com> writes:
> > > >I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
> > > >distinction.  In neither case does the catching of the ball result
> > > >directly in the run.  In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
> > > >dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
> > > >home.  We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
> > > >either case.  It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
> > > >same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
> > > >unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.
>
> > > Not really.  In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
> > > predictable.  A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
> > > vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
> > > has a great arm.  Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
> > > score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
> > > on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance.  The same is not true
> > > of a pop foul.  Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
> > > runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly.  Because of
> > > that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
> > > play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
> > > doesn't reflect well on the batter.
>
> > So, we're basically saying "you hit a ball like that, you can't expect
> > to drive in a run, so we're not giving you any credit, (even if, by
> > some strange set of circumstances, it actually does bring in a run)"?
>
> Obviously, none of us were present at the rules committee meeting, but
> yeah, that's my take on it.
>
> > I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I have a hypothetical
> > situation to further explore the idea:
>
> > Let's say the bases are loaded with one out.  Batter hits a pop-up in
> > the infield.  Because of wind, or sun, or miscommunication, or some
> > combination thereof, the ball drops, untouched, and the runner scores
> > from third.  Do we give an RBI?
>
> Sure, because we give the batter a hit, and a run scored on this hit,
> so it meets the criteria for an RBI.

I'm assuming that the infield fly rule would have been invoked - so
the batter's out, no hit. Sorry, I should have mentioned that; it
makes it a trickier question.
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question 

On Apr 24, 12:35 pm, Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:05 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....DeleteThis@acme.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 10:07 am, r....DeleteThis@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
> > > > Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> writes:
> > > > >I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
> > > > >distinction.  In neither case does the catching of the ball result
> > > > >directly in the run.  In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
> > > > >dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
> > > > >home.  We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
> > > > >either case.  It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
> > > > >same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
> > > > >unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.
>
> > > > Not really.  In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
> > > > predictable.  A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
> > > > vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
> > > > has a great arm.  Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
> > > > score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
> > > > on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance.  The same is not true
> > > > of a pop foul.  Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
> > > > runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly.  Because of
> > > > that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
> > > > play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
> > > > doesn't reflect well on the batter.
>
> > > So, we're basically saying "you hit a ball like that, you can't expect
> > > to drive in a run, so we're not giving you any credit, (even if, by
> > > some strange set of circumstances, it actually does bring in a run)"?
>
> > Obviously, none of us were present at the rules committee meeting, but
> > yeah, that's my take on it.
>
> > > I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I have a hypothetical
> > > situation to further explore the idea:
>
> > > Let's say the bases are loaded with one out.  Batter hits a pop-up in
> > > the infield.  Because of wind, or sun, or miscommunication, or some
> > > combination thereof, the ball drops, untouched, and the runner scores
> > > from third.  Do we give an RBI?
>
> > Sure, because we give the batter a hit, and a run scored on this hit,
> > so it meets the criteria for an RBI.
>
> I'm assuming that the infield fly rule would have been invoked - so
> the batter's out, no hit.  Sorry, I should have mentioned that; it
> makes it a trickier question.

You are right. I didn't pick up on the bases loaded aspect.
Actually, the more I think about it the less probable the scenario
is. What is the runner at third doing heading for home? I suppose a
particularly daring, Ty Cobb-like runner might make a break for it,
but it seems rather a stretch, and it requires that the fielder stare
dumbly at the ball lying on the grass: not impossible, but not
likely.

To answer the question of is an RBI credited, yes it is. Rule 10.04(a)
(1) explicitly gives an RBI when a run is scored on an infield out.
I'm sure they had in mind something like a ground ball to the second
baseman, but that's what the rule says. I also think that my previous
comments still apply.

Richard R. Hershberger
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question 

On Apr 24, 10:18 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....DeleteThis@acme.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:35 pm, Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 8:05 am, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe....DeleteThis@acme.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 10:07 am, r....DeleteThis@alumnae.caltech.edu (Roger Moore) wrote:
>
> > > > > Seapig <sea....DeleteThis@altavista.com> writes:
> > > > > >I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm still not seeing any real
> > > > > >distinction.  In neither case does the catching of the ball result
> > > > > >directly in the run.  In one case it's the catch plus sliding into the
> > > > > >dugout, in the other it's the catch plus the runner beating the throw
> > > > > >home.  We're now two steps removed from the batter's contribution in
> > > > > >either case.  It seems to me that the batter's contribution is the
> > > > > >same in both plays - he hit the ball to a place where the fielder was
> > > > > >unable to catch it without allowing the run to score.
>
> > > > > Not really.  In the case of a deep fly, the run scoring is
> > > > > predictable.  A reasonably deep fly will score a runner from third the
> > > > > vast majority of the time, even if the runner is slow and the fielder
> > > > > has a great arm.  Because it's predictable, it's assumed that the
> > > > > score is the result of where the batter hit the ball, not any failure
> > > > > on the part of the fielder or odd circumstance.  The same is not true
> > > > > of a pop foul.  Runners hardly ever score on pop fouls, even if the
> > > > > runner is fast and the fielder catches the ball awkwardly.  Because of
> > > > > that, it's assumed that any run that does score is the result of a bad
> > > > > play by a fielder (like an error) or some strange circumstance that
> > > > > doesn't reflect well on the batter.
>
> > > > So, we're basically saying "you hit a ball like that, you can't expect
> > > > to drive in a run, so we're not giving you any credit, (even if, by
> > > > some strange set of circumstances, it actually does bring in a run)"?
>
> > > Obviously, none of us were present at the rules committee meeting, but
> > > yeah, that's my take on it.
>
> > > > I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I have a hypothetical
> > > > situation to further explore the idea:
>
> > > > Let's say the bases are loaded with one out.  Batter hits a pop-up in
> > > > the infield.  Because of wind, or sun, or miscommunication, or some
> > > > combination thereof, the ball drops, untouched, and the runner scores
> > > > from third.  Do we give an RBI?
>
> > > Sure, because we give the batter a hit, and a run scored on this hit,
> > > so it meets the criteria for an RBI.
>
> > I'm assuming that the infield fly rule would have been invoked - so
> > the batter's out, no hit.  Sorry, I should have mentioned that; it
> > makes it a trickier question.
>
> You are right.  I didn't pick up on the bases loaded aspect.
> Actually, the more I think about it the less probable the scenario
> is.  What is the runner at third doing heading for home?  I suppose a
> particularly daring, Ty Cobb-like runner might make a break for it,
> but it seems rather a stretch, and it requires that the fielder stare
> dumbly at the ball lying on the grass:  not impossible, but not
> likely.

If the ball drops untouched, it's not necessarily going to fall where
somebody can easily pick it up - it could spin away from the nearest
fielder, or drop behind him, or take a high bounce on artificial
turf. The runner could come home because he sees this, or maybe he
just doesn't know the infield fly rule.

> To answer the question of is an RBI credited, yes it is.  Rule 10.04(a)
> (1) explicitly gives an RBI when a run is scored on an infield out.
> I'm sure they had in mind something like a ground ball to the second
> baseman, but that's what the rule says.  I also think that my previous
> comments still apply.

This brings me back to a question I asked earlier in the thread: does
"an infield out" have to be a fair ball? If so, are we just assuming
that, or is it in the rules somewhere?
 >> Stay informed about: Another scoring question